Tag Archives: Bibi Netanyahu

Obama, in radical mosque, calls for other religions to be tolerant

Obama-Mosque-Visit_HoroOriginally posted at American Thinker

As the body count at the hand of Islamic extremists continues to rise in America, shouldn’t the president be trying to come up with a way to defend Judeo-Christian types, who cling to guns and the Bible, from Islamic jihadi types who cling to machetes and the Quran?

Guess not, because for his first visit to a U.S. mosque, Obama chose a congregation where a Sudanese native and former member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Adam el-Sheikh, was chief imam for almost twenty years.

Why would a U.S. president even give credence to a congregation once led by a man who also lent a hand in founding the Muslim American Society, a Muslim Brotherhood-established organization interested in advancing sharia law?

Does Obama not care that in his spare time, the current executive director of the Fiqh Council of North America, an association of Islamic legal scholars, also helped found the notorious Dar Al-Hijrah mosque, led by the late al-Qaeda terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki?  Or that in 2004, while still serving as imam of the Islamic Society of Baltimore, el-Sheikh discussed Palestinian suicide bombers with the Washington Post?

If certain Muslims are to be cornered where they cannot defend themselves, except through these kinds of means, and their local religious leaders issued fatwas to permit that, then it becomes acceptable as an exceptional rule, but should not be taken as a principle.

Even the alleged terrorist-affiliated Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) commended Obama’s decision to visit the Islamic Society of Baltimore, saying:

For a number of years, we’ve been encouraging the president to go to an American mosque.  With the tremendous rise in anti-Muslim sentiment in our country, we believe that it will send a message of inclusion and mutual respect.

“Inclusion and mutual respect”?

Maybe CAIR should tell that to the two homosexual men murdered by devout Muslim-American/convicted sex offender Ali Muhammad Brown, who, after rinsing the blood off his hands, went on to avenge Muslim deaths overseas by also executing 19-year-old college student Brendan Tevlin at a traffic light.

Prior to the president showing up in Baltimore, White House spokesperson Josh “Not So” Earnest had this to say:

I think the president is quite interested in making sure that we’re affirming the important role that Muslims play in our diverse American society and certainly affirming their right to worship God in a way that’s consistent with their heritage.

Question: Who exactly is not upholding “the important role that Muslims play in our diverse American society”?  And in the 3,186 mosques located in cities all across America, which people are having their “right to worship God in a way that’s consistent with their heritage” thwarted?

Furthermore, rather than worrying about the 3 million Muslims steadily progressing toward becoming the second largest religion in America, maybe Josh should be making sure that, despite Obama, the Little Sisters of the Poor retain their “right to worship God in a way that’s consistent with their heritage.”

Meanwhile, the president descended on the Islamic Society of Baltimore, which is sort of like preaching about being less discriminatory toward Christians from the pulpit of the hateful Westboro Baptist Church.

In Baltimore, Obama mentioned bullied Muslim children and vandalized mosques and lauded Ibtihaj Muhammad, a 2016 female Olympian who plays with swords while dressed in a hijab.  Then he pointed out that “we have to understand: an attack on one faith is an attack on all our faiths.”

One small problem!  This is the guy who consistently assaults certain faiths.

In 2009, prior to a speaking engagement at Georgetown University’s Gaston Hall, Obama requested the crucifixes be covered up.  That same year, in order to have a “non-religious” Christmas, Obama suggested that the East Room Nativity be relocated.  Likewise, the president has blamed Christianity for lives lost during the Crusades and regularly ridicules the Christian faith with snide remarks.

As for God’s chosen people, Obama insulted Jews at a White House Hanukah celebration; publicly dissed Bibi Netanyahu; and, worse yet, minimized the threat posed by providing a genocidal anti-Semitic revolutionary theocratic state a pathway to a nuclear bomb.

Not to mention the president’s failure to acknowledge the worldwide genocide being waged by Muslims against Christians, or ignoring the fact that in America, Jews are ten times more likely than Muslims to be targeted for a hate crime.

Advocating for Islam seems to be Barack “that’s not who we are'” Obama’s most ardent public relations effort.  In his recent State of the Union address, anyone perceived to be indulging in what he perceives as anti-Muslim bigotry was publicly rebuked when he said:

When politicians insult Muslims, whether abroad or our fellow citizens, when a mosque is vandalized, or a kid called names, that doesn’t make us safer. That’s not telling it like it is. It’s just wrong. It diminishes us in the eyes of the world.

How about when Muslim extremists living in the U.S. shoot and kill 14 people at a Christmas party; behead a co-worker at a food distribution plant; or, “on a mission from Allah,” stab a store clerk to death?  Does that “make us safer”?

Besides, how is America elevated in the eyes of the world if our president remains silent after Islamic extremists behead two Coptic Christians in New Jersey, or slit the throats of three Jewish men in Massachusetts?

Since Barack Obama ascended from the mean streets of Chicago to the Oval Office in 2009, there have been approximately 64 people murdered by Muslim extremists on U.S. soil, and that’s not counting the number of American deaths at the hands of Muslims overseas.

And yet, in another attempt to address what Barack Obama calls a “hugely distorted impression” of Islam, the one suffering from what perceives in others hoped to remedy the problem by commiserating with the guilty at a radical mosque in Baltimore.

MICHELLE O COUNSELS: Use Your ‘Voice’ (As Long as It Agrees with Obama)

angry michelle_thumb[12]Originally posted at CLASH Daily

Michelle “Mixed Message” Obama traveled to Cambodia to encourage young girls to speak up. While there, the U.S. first lady told a Cambodian audience that educating girls allows them “to participate in the political life of their country and hold their leaders accountable,” an idea that should float nicely in a country run by a dictator.

Meanwhile, here in America, with the approval, funding, and hearty endorsement by the Obama administration, by way of feticide, every day 3,000-4,000 babies are denied the right to ever use their voices, half of them girls. So in essence Michelle’s message about girls using their voice only applies if Cambodian mothers choose not to use their voice to say “I’m here to have an abortion.”

While we’re on the subject of abortion, participating in political life, and holding leaders accountable, Mrs. Obama’s husband Barack has been delving into a similar realm, politically speaking. Seems that despite Michelle encouraging “voice usage”, her husband apparently believes that Israeli voters speaking out at the polls is something they shouldn’t be permitted to do.

Melding the quashing of voices and abortive tactics the same way he uses the tax dollars of pro-lifers to pay for abortion procedures they disagree with, it has been revealed that Barack Obama moved U.S. taxpayer monies through non-profit organizations to interfere in the Israel election.

Evidently Obama was exercising his right to choose who should be Prime Minister of Israel and sent a team of government-funded abortionists to Israel to abort Bibi Netanyahu. The only thing missing from this scenario was a bereted band of New Black Panthers stationed outside Israeli polling stations beating back Likud voters with billysticks.

Unfortunately, despite Barack’s best efforts, Bibi was “Born Alive”, so to speak.

Now the only hope Barack Obama has to fulfill his dream of political abortion is to find another way to undermine Bibi’s survival. From the looks of things, the president is counting on Iran to bring to fruition what appears to be his original intent to terminate the Jewish state.

Here’s the problem with all of this: How can Michelle Obama travel to a country ruled by an authoritarian strongman leader, large numbers of school dropouts, and endemic poverty to speak against the very conditions Barack Obama is intentionally cultivating here in America? Worse yet, in Cambodia she encouraged schoolgirls to do what her husband absolutely forbids here at home, which is to allow citizens “participation in political life” by holding him accountable.

Moreover, how can a representative of a government that is restricting First Amendment rights more and more every day be taken seriously when she encourages girls to “use” their voices?

After all, under the Obama regime those who express views that disagree with the president’s are retaliated against by government entities such as the IRS. Fox News and Tea Party activists are publicly mocked and derided for expressing an adversarial opinion, and conservative commentators vilified endlessly by the husband of the woman inspiring others to speak up.

Not only that, but when Bibi came to the United States to verbally express the dangers he believes will ensue if Obama assists Tehran in acquiring a nuclear bomb, Obama did what Michelle suggested schoolgirls in the Cambodian city of Siem Reap do to those who discourage voicing one’s opinion – he ignored Bibi.

Nevertheless, in an effort to undermine an entire sovereign nation from expressing their preference at the polls, if Obama does what he usually does it’s highly likely he’ll attempt to quell the voice of the Israeli people because a democratic election delivered a result opposite to what Barack Obama had hoped.

The truth is that much to Barack Obama’s chagrin, like a woman who visits an abortion clinic late-term only to give birth to a living baby destined to be aborted, Bibi survived.

Now, without an available laundry room to toss the prime minister into in hopes he’ll fade away without oxygen, warmth, and hydration, not to burden the original intent of getting rid of Bibi, Barack Obama must find an alternate route to rid the world, once and for all, of Bibi Netanyahu’s voice.

And so the Obama hypocrisy continues.

We have Mrs. Obama circumnavigating the globe promoting education, political activism, the benefit of holding politicians accountable, as well as free expression for girls. Meanwhile here at home, both girls and boys are being deprived of a voice because, with Michelle’s hearty approval, they’re being denied the right to life. Not to mention Michelle’s husband sic’ing the federal government on any political adversary that demands he become accountable to the nation.

Couple those double standards with President Obama opposing both nationally and internationally the right of individuals and nations to exercise their voice if what is voiced differs from his planetary vision for a progressive Islamic panacea.

Compounding that glaring dichotomy is Obama orchestrating a Chicago-style effort to abort the Israeli Prime Minister by sending a taxpayer-funded goon squad to pulverize the fearless leader whose voice advocates dealing with Iran in ways contrary to what Barack Obama demands.

Obama’s election minions descend on Israel

obama-netanyahuOriginally posted at American Thinker

Barack Obama doesn’t appreciate anyone treating him like he treats everyone else.  That’s why the president will not be meeting with Israeli prime minister Bibi Netanyahu when, in response to an invitation from House Speaker John Boehner, he comes to the U.S. to address a joint session of Congress on the threat a nuclear Iran poses to Israel and the world.

Petulant child Barack Obama doesn’t take perceived insult well.  His response is usually spiteful, and disproportionately so.  The president embodies what Robert Kennedy meant when he said, “Don’t get mad; get even.”

On more than one occasion Barack Obama has reminded his political adversaries that he won.  The president has publicly rebuked congressmen, dressed down Supreme Court justices at a State of the Union address, and scolded reporters, political adversaries, and anyone else he perceives as critical of his one-sided, left-leaning progressive vision.

On occasion, in the process of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America,” Obama has been known to throw temper tantrums, stomp out of meetings, mock Republicans, and issue threats.

And the ingenious Barack Obama has also been known to display his vindictiveness in more creative ways.

Take for instance sending non-verbal messages of approval or disapproval with his selective attendance at funerals.  If a conservative ally or war hero passes away or a black thug or a border-crossing illegal murders a law enforcement officer, their deaths are ignored.  On the other hand, liberal celebrities, civil rights activists, Saudi dictators, communist South African presidents, and any other individuals whose deaths further his liberal agenda are all recognized with effusive condolences.

But skipping funerals and bubble-wrapping and sending back to Britain Winston Churchill’s bust pale in comparison to Obama’s vile approach toward Israeli prime minister Bibi Netanyahu.

Caught on an open mic talking with Nicolas Sarkozy, Obama responded to the former French president, who said he could not stand Netanyahu and called him a liar, by saying, “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!”

The year prior, Obama had presented Mr. Netanyahu with a list of 13 demands designed to mend fences with Palestine, one of which was for all construction in East Jerusalem be halted.  When Bibi balked, the president stood up, announced, “I’m going to the residential wing to have dinner with Michelle and the girls,” and stormed out of the room, leaving the Israeli prime minister sitting alone for over an hour.

In 2011, Scott Wilson of the Washington Post described the relationship between Bibi and Barack perfectly when he wrote that “Obama and Netanyahu are allies only by tradition, and their relationship lacks personal warmth and is tested often by their differing political views.”

In other words, the relationship is cold, confrontational, and at times openly hostile.

Netanyahu is offended by Obama’s wanting to negotiate with a nation whose former president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said, “Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation’s fury,” and whose Ministry of Defense stated that “[t]he day will come when the Islamic people in the region will destroy Israel and save the world from this Zionist base.”

That’s why, when invited by John Boehner to address a problem Barack Obama refuses to deal with, for the safety and well-being of both America and Israel, Netanyahu graciously accepted the invitation to deliver a message to a Congress craving a dose of reality.

Evidently, Obama is furious that Boehner invited Netanyahu.  A White House spokesperson speaking on Mr. Obama’s behalf said that Bibi accepting the invitation is equivalent to spitting in the president’s face.

If I may, saying Prime Minister Netanyahu “spat in our face publicly,” referring of course to President Obama’s face, is a dramatic word picture.

When the anonymous spokesperson stressed that “Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price,” it was exactly the kind of nasty Chicago-style threat Barack the community organizer is now known for.

Then, just a few days after the “price to pay” warning, Obama refused to meet with the Israeli leader.  Citing “the proximity to the Israeli election,” National Security Council spokeswoman Bernadette Meehan said:

As a matter of long-standing practice and principle…[and]…to avoid the appearance of influencing a democratic election in a foreign country… we do not see heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections.

And while that seems like a noble practice, we now come to find out that the “price to pay” may involve the Obama administration doing the exact opposite of “long-standing practice and principle.”  In fact, from the looks of things, Barack Obama may be very interested in “influencing a democratic election in a foreign country.”

According to Israeli media outlet Haaretz, the “Anyone but Bibi” V-2015 campaign is being assisted by Harvard-educated Jeremy Bird, Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns’ Organizing for Action deputy national field director.  The V-2015 plan is to defeat Bibi by engaging in an Israeli ground operation similar to the one that helped secure Obama a two-term U.S. presidency.

Flush with American money, Bird and a team of Obama community organizers are working with “One Voice International,” a U.S. State Department-funded grassroots movement whose goal is to “amplif[y] the voice of mainstream Israelis and Palestinians, empowering them to propel their elected representatives toward the two-state solution.”

Coincidentally, the former COO of Soros Fund Management, Gary Gladstein, sits on the “One Voice” Honorary Board of Advisors.

That’s why Barack Obama is undoubtedly anxious to see his nemesis, for repeatedly defying the president’s demands, and for treating the PLO and the soon-to-be-nuclear Iran like nothing more than common terrorists, crushed by a two-state-friendly opponent.

Bottom line: once again, the malicious, spiteful Barack Obama, whose minions have successfully placed in office a leader who intrinsically despises the nation he leads – twice – may be attempting to get his own way by replacing a leader who loves Israel with a leader who does not.

WHITE HOUSE INDIGNATION: Did Bibi Spit In Obama’s Face?

عکاسی-با-سرعت-بالا-11Originally posted at CLASH Daily

Pay attention! Barack Obama, the autonomous, Constitution-defying president who pretty much does whatever he wants is livid because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu failed to coordinate his March visit with the one who consults with no one.

That’s right – White House officials, on behalf of a man who “spits in everyone’s face”, have said that Obama believes that Netanyahu’s plan to speak before a joint session of Congress to address the dangers Iran poses to Israel and the world is tantamount to spitting in President Obama’s face.

In case you forgot, Benjamin Netanyahu is the guy who was left sitting in a White House meeting room when he failed to submit to Obama’s diktats concerning construction in East Jerusalem. Not only that, but talk about double-standards: Obama skipping Paris wasn’t “spitting in an ally’s face”, but Bibi accepting an invitation to address Congress is being likened to spitting in Obama’s face?

For years now, Obama has been looking for any excuse to publicly place Netanyahu in the same category that he’s placed the rest of his enemies. That’s why the president continues to regularly try to push the Israeli Prime Minister’s buttons – most recently to demand that Netanyahu tone down his rhetoric calling for sanctions against Iran. Bibi is smart and surely recognizes Obama’s attempt to set up a scapegoat to blame when the negotiations, which would never have worked with Iran in the first place, completely break down.

The problem for Obama is that clearly Bibi Netanyahu fears no one and is proving again that a fraidy cat like Obama does not intimidate him, and so, thanks to John Boehner’s newfound boldness, Bibi graciously accepted the invitation and has no intention of submitting to the president’s unreasonable demands.

According to a White House spokesperson, by accepting the Speaker’s invitation, Mr. Netanyahu did something “you simply don’t do. [Bibi] spat in our face publicly and that’s no way to behave.” Then, after calling out the Israeli leader’s behavior, Obama’s mouthpiece, on behalf of the president, issued a customary Chicago-style threat: “Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price.”

Thus far, there’s been no price, or only a minimal price paid, for ISIS beheading Americans, no price for al Qaeda spilling French and Jewish blood, no price for ISIS gunning down 14 year-old boys for watching soccer matches, and no price for Boko Haram allegedly slaughtering 2,000 people. But Bibi Netanyahu agrees to come to the US to speak about a threat Obama refuses to confront – for that, “there will be a price”?

Based on the president’s conduct, all his foot-stomping has accomplished is to prove that tyrants simply can’t be negotiated with. Yet Obama continues to warn both Bibi and the Republican Congress that a sanctions bill would negatively impact negotiations with Iranian leaders.

What’s different here is that Boehner, who has talked tough and then summarily backed down with predictable consistency, must have gotten the loud and clear message at the SOTU from the cocksure Obama and decided to take his job seriously. Realizing that negotiating with the one who plans to negotiate with Iran isn’t going to work, Boehner extended an invitation to an authentic world leader.

Meanwhile, back at the White House, the camaraderie between Bibi and Boehner is probably infuriating for someone used to always getting his own way.

What’s funny is that Obama can taunt, sneer, snigger, and abuse whomever he pleases, but let that be aimed back at him and Barack “I won twice” Obama throws a public hissy fit. Barack Obama’s unique governing style came back to bite the haughty one in the butt, and lo and behold, he can’t take what he dishes out.

How dare the Israeli leader speak truthfully about the all-but-nonexistent US-led nuclear negotiations with Iran? And how dare Netanyahu, whose country is surrounded on all sides by enemies, urge US lawmakers to ignore Obama’s threats to veto and impose a new round of tougher sanctions on Tehran?

In response to Netanyahu’s plans to bring just that sort of message to the joint session of Congress, officials in Washington – who it was is unknown – said that the “chickensh*t” nickname an anonymous administration official gave Netanyahu several months ago paled in comparison to the salty language used in the White House when the real “chickensh*ts” got news of Netanyahu’s planned speech.

Meanwhile, citing “departure from… protocol,” Obama, who parties in Gwyneth Paltrow’s backyard, invites Beyoncé and Jay-Z to the White House and grants interviews to individuals who thank him on YouTube for raising taxes to provide them with free healthcare, has refused to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu. That’s actually a good thing, because it deprives Obama of a second opportunity to be spiteful by leaving the Israeli leader sitting in a room somewhere in the White House by himself.

NO SURPRISE: Pro-Choice Obama Versus Israel


Ob-Net-300x180Originally posted at The Clash Daily

After six years of Barack Obama’s fervent pro-abortion philosophy it comes as no surprise that the left is completely comfortable verbalizing their disdain for Israel and her right to life.

Liberals as a group generally err on the side of evil while attempting to portray their revulsion for everything near and dear to the heart of God as righteousness.

Think about it – Barack Obama attempts to portray murderous MS-13 gang members as “children” requiring care and compassion while insisting that innocent unborn babies are not human beings, thereby sanctioning the exile of 4,000 of them to red biohazard bags a day. Continue Reading →

Hark! Obama, the Destroyer of Borders, Gives Border Advice


Barack ObamaOriginally posted at The Clash Daily

A lot of insight can be gained from revisiting snippets of Barack Obama’s old speeches. The lectures the president has imposed on his audiences provide an understanding of how one man’s view of the world stands to irrevocably impact America’s future.

Take for instance the president’s comments on the Middle East that he delivered prior to a scheduled meeting with Bibi Netanyahu in May of 2011. Those remarks were delivered one year after Obama stomped out of the Roosevelt Room and left Netanyahu to stew for an hour while he ate dinner in the residential wing. As usual, Obama had all the answers to problems he knows nothing about.

The president covered a lot of ground, but at one point, Obama brought up a young Tunisian street vendor named Mohammed Bouazizi who lost his business when a police officer confiscated his cart. When officials refused to hear his complaints, Bouazizi, who Obama said was never “particularly active in politics,” self-immolated in frustration.

The president said, “This was not unique.  It’s the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world -– the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity.”

Little did we realize at the time that Obama would be describing the tyranny he himself imposes by denying frustrated Americans the dignity to which we are constitutionally entitled when our leaders uphold the rule of law and adhere to our nation’s founding document.

If Obama felt so moved to address the travails of the people living in Middle East three years ago, how come he refuses to recognize the similarities to the American people, many of whom feel cowed under oppressive government control and frustrated by Obama’s dogged refusal to recognize their fear and anger over Obamacare, the IRS, Benghazi, and the current orchestrated crisis on our southern border?

“There are times in the course of history,” the president said, “when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years.” At the time, did Obama anticipate that there would be a “longing for freedom…building up for years” here in America after enduring six years of his domineering policies?

Come to think of it, when Obama speaks, does he ever listen to what comes out of his mouth? He spoke of Rosa Parks and how in Tunisia, as in America, “the defiance of patriots” had the power to “tap into the frustration felt throughout a country” until those resisting tyranny accomplished their goal.

Then he actually said:

In too many countries power has been concentrated in the hands of a few… a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn – no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.

Referring to the conflict-ridden Middle East, Obama also touched upon “strategies of repression and strategies of diversion,” which are the very same manipulative tactics he uses in the United States to expand his power. The president declared, “Divisions of tribe, ethnicity and religious sect…[being]… manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else.” Sound familiar?

Positioning himself to take credit for a Middle East success story that never actually came to pass, Obama said, “So we face a historic opportunity.  We have the chance to show that America values the dignity of the street vendor in Tunisia more than the raw power of the dictator.”

Based on the public’s current aversion to the deliberate creation of an illegal immigration crisis on the border, it certainly seems as though Obama’s use of raw power is what’s causing the loss of dignity Americans are increasingly feeling as hundreds of thousands of illegals pour into our country, many of whom are carrying infectious diseases.

And while Barack Obama’s doubletalk and disingenuousness are always predictable, from where we stand today, probably the most stunning pronouncement of the Middle East speech was when the Destroyer of Borders gave border advice.

Even though nobody asked him, in a few words Obama shifted longstanding U.S. policy and spoke on America’s behalf when he said, “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Why would a community organizer who never planned to recognize and secure the borders of America feel qualified to suggest “secure and recognized borders” for Palestine and Israel? Even more concerning is the very real possibility that this man might be capable of suggesting that the U.S. share a piece of our territorial pie by relinquishing a portion of our established southern borders to those currently invading our homeland.

Sound far-fetched? Think again. Isn’t that what he suggested Israel should do?

Paraphrasing his favorite quote for the Middle East, the Alinskyite also said, “But after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.”

Then he emphatically declared, “America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them.  And sometimes we profoundly disagree with them.” Well, that’s for sure!

True Americans certainly do respect “the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard, even if we disagree with them.” But Barack Obama most definitely does not respect that right, especially if the peaceful and law-abiding voices belong to border patrol agents or to the media wanting to speak out about the dire consequences sure to follow the fiasco in Texas and Arizona.

In the meantime, the words that Barack Obama meant for the Middle East three years ago are now more suited to a nation suffering as a result of the chaos he is currently fostering here at home.

 

Barack Obama’s Excellent Israeli Adventure

Obama-Israel-holocaust-muse-horizontalOriginally posted at American Thinker

It’s Passover, and although Barack Hussein Obama’s lineage is far removed from that of Abraham, the man should at least put a little of the emergency transfusion blood that they bring along in the president’s motorcade over the lintels of his door.

Mr. Obama’s first trip to Israel as president was similar to his Jakarta jaunt in 2010 and his “Return to Moneygall” tour in 2011.  In Indonesia, the trip was cut short when Java’s Mount Merapi began spewing ash in Air Force One’s direction.  In Ireland, while revisiting his roots, Obama’s limo got hung up on a bump as it left the U.S. embassy.

In Israel, the trouble started when someone filled the engine of the president’s $1.5-million armored limo with gasoline instead of diesel fuel.  Then the vehicle biblically dubbed “The Beast” had to be towed like a busted parade float through the streets of Tel Aviv on a flatbed truck.

It’s unlikely that Obama recognized the parallel, but filling up a diesel-powered car with gasoline is a perfect analogy for what he has done to America.  A clueless Obama insists on filling the nation’s tank with the wrong energy, and now America is broken, in need of repair, and praying to God that an alternate vehicle comes along to save us.

Nonetheless, after “The Beast” was demoted, Barack Obama, who everyone knows is perfect, was overheard apologizing to Bibi Netanyhu for his 600-person back-up team, saying, “It’s embarrassing, our entourage.  My wife, Michelle, teases me mercilessly.”

Instead of blaming the help, Obama should have apologized for the conversation he had with Nicolas Sarkozy at the 2011 G20 summit that was picked up on an open microphone.  It was there that Sarkozy said of Netanyahu, “I cannot bear Netanyahu; he’s a liar,” to which Obama responded, “You’re fed up, but I have to deal with him every day.”  As Air Force One touched down at Ben Gurion Airport, an observant Israelinews commentator concisely summed up the Bibi/Barack relationship: “To tell the truth, they can’t stand one another.

Rising above the rancor and deciding to let bygones be bygones, Obama greeted Netanyahu, saying, “Good to see you…and it’s good to get away from Congress.” The president’s best effort at mending fences was to tell Bibi Netanyahu, who knows full well that Obama despises him, that there’s actually an entity he despises even more.

Immediately following those cordialities, there was a state reception with Israeli President Shimon Peres, whom Obama called “brother,” and Mr. Netanyahu, whom Obama did not call “brother,” after which the president inspected the Iron Dome battery and met with Israeli Defense Forces.

From there Obama flew to Jerusalem for another reception at Peres’s home.  That was where the Teleprompter Thespian put on his best Talmudic storyteller face and quoted from Honi and the Carob Tree.

Barack Obama, who’s so adept at planting seeds of dissension and division here at home, left his mark in Israel by planting symbolic “seeds of progress … security … [and] peace.”  Calling to mind Jesus’s words — “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots” — the Israeli government plans to inspect the Jackson magnolia Obama planted in the Holy Land.  If the sapling fails the inspection, the newest addition to Peres’s presidential garden will be uprooted.

After the tree ceremony, Obama visited Israel’s Holocaust museum, Yad Vashem.  Disregarding the 55 million humans tragically slaughtered since 1973, it was at Yad Vashem that the man who supports another holocaust called abortion emphatically declared that “[a] holocaust will never happen again.”

Donning a yarmulke, Obama relit an “eternal flame next to a stone slab above ashes recovered from extermination camps after World War Two.”  While there, President Pro-Choice said, “We have a choice to acquiesce to evil or make real our solemn vow — never again.”

Obama pointed out that “we could come here 1,000 times, and each time your heart would break.”  If the patron saint of NARAL really wants to comprehend heartbreak, he should check out abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell’s murder trial up in New Black Panther poll-watching territory.

After Yad Vashem, Obama visited Mt. Hertzel and the graves of the founder of Zionism, Theodor Herzl and slain Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.  From there it was off to Netanyahu’s residence to discuss Iran, Syria, and the fate of Israeli spy/U.S. citizen Jonathan Pollard, currently serving life in a maximum-security prison in Illinois.  Then a press conference and a dinner unlike the dinner Obama didn’t invite Mr. Netanyahu to when he left the Israeli prime minister sitting alone in the Roosevelt Room of the White House.

At Binyamei Ha’uma, the president addressed a group of Arab and Israeli students that understandably excluded those irritated with Obama for inflicting himself on Jerusalem during the wind-up to Passover.  Obama dined with Peres, went sightseeing, and breakfasted with Netanyahu at the lavish King David Hotel, where he and his crew took up 233 rooms, and did it all before scurrying off to spend time with King Abdullah in Jordan.

It’s common knowledge that the president has a history of attracting fliesratslightning, and volcanic ash.  Therefore, it was standard fare when a fierce sandstorm grounded Obama’s helicopter, forcing him to travel instead by car to Palestine-controlled Bethlehem in a slow-moving motorcade, where he met with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah.

Not counting car repairs and travel costs, the excursion totaled $500 million in unblocked aid to the Palestinians, $200 million to the Jordanians, and a tow truck full of meaningless platitudes to Israel.

And so, at the end of Obama’s Israeli vacation, the broken-down Beast and the backup blood were loaded back onto a cargo plane for the flight home.  Barry and his souvenir kippah departed the Holy Land possibly liking Netanyahu a teeny bit more than Congress.  Left behind were angry Israelis and Palestinians, a still-pending Jackson magnolia, a wreath at Yad Vashem, remnants of an Exodus-like sandstorm, and visions of Barack’s big, butch, 18-foot-long armored limo being castrated by a tank of gas.

Obama Raffle: Dinner with Mr. Lonely

Originally posted at BIG Government

During Bibi Netanyahu’s 2010 visit to the White House, in the middle of a tense settlement concession conversation an irritated Obama left Mr. Netanyahu sitting in a room to rush upstairs for din-din with Shelley and the girls. Abruptly walking out of the room, the President said “Let me know if there is anything new.”  Either the Israeli Prime Minister was being officially dissed, or Michelle refuses to tolerate any excuse for Barack showing up late for dinner

However, in the future, should the Prime Minister desire another sit-down with the President of the United States, he’ll have the option of purchasing a roll of tickets for the “Sometime soon, can we meet for dinner/Reelect Barack Obama” raffle.

Before the “Sometime Soon, Can We Meet For Dinner?” initiative, Netanyahu didn’t stand a chance in hell of getting Barack to sit through an entire conversation.  Now, at least Bibi has as much opportunity as anyone else willing to contribute five bucks.

Now, if by chance Bibi’s ticket is pulled out of the spinning drum, Obama, albeit under duress, will be obliged to endure eating blintzes and can no longer escape a Jerusalem settlement discussion using dinner getting cold as an excuse.

The President of the United States selling dinner raffle tickets may indicate that the man is forlorn and in need of genuine companionship. Begging to be shown love by the people who just three years ago were showering him with confetti and weeping at the mere mention of his name, frankly, is both “creepy” and pathetic.

Barack Obama’s dine-with-me/love-me idea started when the 2012 reelection campaign sent out an email with this subject line: “Sometime soon, can we meet for dinner?” Why would an American president ask such an unusual question? Obviously, to goad supporters into donating money in hopes of winning face time with Mr. Lonely.

The email also says, “So whenever I can, I want to take the opportunity to meet you.” Wouldn’t a message like that coming from anyone besides the President alert Americans trained to be careful online that it may be time to call in the authorities?

Nevertheless, Obama’s endearing words reminded voters that he and they are more than just political allies.  The President said “Supporters like you are reason I’m here, and that the values we share have always made our organization more than just a political campaign.”

Honestly, the President’s fundraising/supper-with-a-supporter email was more like an awkward love letter than a powerful politician’s solicitation for money.

That aside, winning benefactors will have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to experience what Bibi Netanyahu was denied, which is to enjoy dinner and a chat with Barack Obama and be thanked “in person,” something a former Democrat president, who shall remain nameless, provided for free.

In addition, the email updated constituents on Obama’s summer meeting with volunteers from around the nation, which could be liberal code for ACORN workers and Black Panther poll watchers.  The online correspondence also expressed the President’s heartfelt desire “to talk one on one with the people…taking ownership of [the] campaign and [to] connect with the work going on every day in neighborhoods across the country.”

Try as he might to disguise it, Barack sounded as if the real reason for the odd fundraising style, besides being starved for the cheering displays of adoration that he’s become accustomed to, might be that the President is unable to pry himself away from his love of community organizing.

If Barry really wants to inspire community involvement, for an extra $2 the President could suggest a secondary raffle for a chance to win his very own well-worn, personally autographed copy of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

Moreover, and not to be overly critical, but based on some of the high class dinners Barry has treated friends to in the past, like the time he took Dmitry Medvedev to Ray’s Hell Burger, the $5 may not go directly into the campaign coffers – but could be used to cover the cost of the date.

Let’s remember, the President has tried the raffle thing before, but from the looks of the polls, even enjoying a Ray’s B.I.G. Poppa with Big Poppa doesn’t seem to be turning things around. Even still, Obama said he wants to “keep doing these dinners throughout the campaign.” With the economy in the tank and the line at the unemployment office getting longer every day, and with more and more fast food restaurants taking food stamps, should the President of the United States really be spending time supping with sycophants like the Obama Girl?

In the end, history has proven that dining with the Prime Minister of Israel holds little sway in Obama’s world.  Instead, it’s things like raffle dinners that sets Obama’s campaign apart, because he believes “dinners like these are how [he] will continue to put people at the heart of [his] campaign — and prove that [he doesn’t] need checks from Washington lobbyists or special-interest PAC money to win an election.”

However, what Obama does “need” are $5 donations squeezed out of inexplicably loyal supporters who otherwise don’t have two nickels to rub together.

Couple the dine-with-me email with Obama imploring cheering crowds in North Carolina to prove their love for him by passing his jobs bill, and the whole sorry state of affairs gets even more peculiar.  Crying out for dinner dates and hollering “If you love me, you got [sic] to help me pass this bill,” is either pure desperation, unbridled narcissism, or both, sending the situation from the realm of the strange into the annals of the absurd

However, there’s always a bright side. The next time Bibi Netanyahu is in a room with Obama and the conversation morphs into a “hazing in stages,” the Prime Minister knows he can distract Barry from stomping off to dinner by changing the subject and proposing an idea for yet another raffle, where for just 50 cents unlimited winners get to give America’s love-deprived President a big smooch.

“Big Deal” Barack Breaks it Down



Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

Based on Barack Obama’s comments on the debt discussion breakdown, it’s clear that the President placed blame for the impasse squarely on the shoulders of John Boehner and the Republicans. At his testy post-debt negotiation press conference, “Big Deal” Barack conveniently forgot to mention that the impetus for John Boehner “walking away” from the negotiation table was the President’s insistence on fewer spending cuts and the $400 billion tax revenue surprise he foisted on an already strained process.

Who better than Barack Obama knows that “when it comes to actually doing something difficult folks do sometimes walk away?” In a spoiled, childish fit of anger, Obama has rudely pushed away from a table or two himself, stood up, and without explanation “walked away.”  The President did it with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, and he did it again recently in the midst of heated debt-limit talks with Eric Cantor (R-VA), one of a few governmental grooms he has accused of “leaving [him] at the altar.”

Throughout most of his press conference, an undignified President pointed his finger at Republicans and blamed everyone but himself for the current stalemate, saying “I’m not interested in finger-pointing and I’m not interested in blame, but I just want the facts to speak for themselves.”

In case Americans haven’t noticed, the nation is presently being led by a reckless individual who excels in political posturing while saying things like, “I think [Americans are] fed up with political posturing and an inability for politicians to take responsible action as opposed to dodging their responsibilities.”

The President’s obvious lack of self-awareness, coupled with his immense capacity for self-delusion, must be the reason he doesn’t recognize that saying the House of Representatives’ “inability…to arrive at any kind of a position” is based on refusal to compromise “any of their ideological preferences,” is actually an accurate description of himself.

As the rancor drags on, it’s hard to find anyone, regardless of political persuasion, who would disagree that the debt crisis is serious.  However, what is even more troubling is having a President who refuses to recognize his own culpability for an already-stressed economy being further burdened by the added weight of healthcare reform, not to mention his stubborn determination to move the nation toward a European-style socialist system.

Typically, whenever the President doesn’t get his way, he shifts into irritated victimhood mode. During the self-exalting, adversarial attempt to pass blame, Obama implied the reason for the impasse hinged on Boehner caring more about partisanship and political posturing than the well-being of the nation, which was a strange accusation coming from a proud “progressive” ideologue like Barack Obama, whose “partisan” wouldn’t recognize a “bi” if it tripped over one.

Wait! In fairness to the President, although his comments did include 93 instances of “I,” he did cite Ronald Reagan twice, which could be considered a form of bipartisanship.  In addition to referring to a conservative icon, Barack Obama also boasted of personal “consistency” which, granted, he does exhibit when it comes to self-praise, perseverance on raising taxes, and spending money the nation doesn’t have.

Nonetheless, during the press conference an angry President peppered his Republicans-never-say-‘yes’-to-anything comments with standard class warfare allusions. Obama intimated that Boehner and Co. favor corporate jet owners and oil and gas companies, and go easy on prosperous individuals “making millions or billions of dollars,” like himself.  Always sensitive to struggling unemployed Americans, Obama took another opportunity to remind the nation that he’s “done extremely well and can afford to do a little bit more,” but curiously still hasn’t.

Obama’s crotchety podium manner abounded with descriptions of seniors “being deprived of meals, Social Security and Medicare.” The President painted images of poor children rushing toward the entrances of emergency rooms for lack of Medicaid, disabled Americans “hanging by a thread,” people “thrown off the health care rolls,” and a future where only the children of corporate jet owners get to go to college

It doesn’t stop there; the press conference doubled as a quasi-stump speech. The President – who has taken no breaks in campaigning since 2007 and has scheduled his combination- 50th birthday celebration/$30,400 a ticket campaign fundraiser for the day after the nation officially runs out of cash – began by accusing the Republicans of not agreeing to his demand to raise taxes as “[a] campaign ploy going into the next election.”

The President even brought up talk radio and blamed the Tea Party for not wanting the debt ceiling raised, and for being at the root of Republicans being “stirred up” and drawing  “sharp ideological lines” that have made the deadlock impossible to break.

Obama said, “I mean, the American people are just desperate for folks who are willing to put aside politics just for a minute and try to get some stuff done.” Does Barack Obama believe that “moving goal posts,” crossed arms, pouts, immature vitriol, edicts to “get here at 11:00 am,” and refusing to go easy on an already-unstable economy and job market are also in the “stuff done” category?

Whenever boxed into a corner the President never fails to use the buzzword “fairness,” which suggests that everyone is unfair other than the benevolent Sheriff of Fairville, Barack Obama – America’s generous dispenser of limitless entitlements.

So adept at manipulation is Obama, that when he said “The hard part is actually dealing with the underlying debt and deficits, and doing it in a way that’s fair. That’s all the American people are looking for — some fairness,” the implication was that America still sees Obama-style “fairness” as the answer to the problem.

Based on his remarks, Obama must want the nation to believe he spends a large part of his day reading mail from fair-minded Americans, who believe “neither party is blameless,” and who want a just President like him to solve the debt/deficit problem without “balanc[ing] the budget on the backs of seniors.”

The President’s comments at his post-debt-negotiation-breakdown press conference imply that he perceives himself to be that “somebody” the nation is “looking for…to look out for them.”

Bordering on deluded, the President, who must assume that “leading” is what he’s doing, challenged Republicans by saying that “at some point, I think if you want to be a leader, then you got to lead.” Happy to rise to Obama’s challenge, Congressional leaders did just that, and did so by choosing to exclude Obama from post-press conference debt negotiation talks. Boehner and McConnell summoned a clueless Pelosi and a “very angry” Reid in an attempt to solve the debt crisis without “Big Deal” Barack who, instead of leading, points fingers, pouts and projects onto others his own pugnacious behavior.

Laws are for the little people, not President Obama

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

An ad to raise campaign funds has now made it official: Whatever applies to 300 million Americans does not and will never apply to the once-in-a-millennia exception to any rule that applies to all living entities – Barack Obama.

Based on his behavior, it’s apparent the president views himself as a man so lofty in vision and skill that he’s exempt from the decrees imposed on we the little people.  Could it be that Obama perceives legalistic edicts as necessary tools to herd lowlifes? If that were not the case, why would he be mentalizing which pair of golf shoes and what cologne to include in his ditty bag for a weekend at Camp David while chiding Congress for daring to take a break in the midst of a budget crisis?

As witnessed in all he does, Obama’s attitude of exempting some while imposing on others doesn’t only apply to healthcare reform waivers or Fourth of July weekend getaways.  When it comes to excusing himself, Barack Obama doesn’t let little things like silly legalities affect his decisions to do whatever he damned well pleases. Following the example of America’s “Let’s Move” creator/healthy-eating first lady who “tucked” into fried fat cakes in Botswana, Obama is relaxed when it comes to personal restrictions.

Recently, the lackadaisical Obama proved that exact point when he flouted a federal law as if it didn’t exist. The following description of Title 18, subsection 607 U.S.C. is so straightforward even a layperson could understand.

It shall be unlawful for an individual who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, including the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress, to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election, while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties.

In other words, the law says Barack Obama should not solicit reelection money or donations while in any room or building where official duties are carried out – such as hawking a wheel of raffle tickets on White House premises as if it were a church dance sweepstakes for a cheap door prize.

Lest we forget, the guy so anxious to now have dinner guests left Bibi Netanyahu sitting alone in the White House meeting room while he went and had a private dinner with Michelle.

According to election law experts, in flagrant disregard for federal law President Obama filmed a fundraising video offering dinner with himself and Vice President Biden as the grand prize for having a $5 raffle ticket plucked out of a giant spinning drum.

What’s next, a car wash on the South Lawn? How about $100 for 10-minute spin on Marine One? And why stop there? A White House yard sale featuring Michelle’s old clothes could raise enough gas money to fill up the “Hope and Change 2012” campaign bus for its entire tour.

Just as French fries are regularly enjoyed by a lady insistently force-feeding the nation organic kale, Obama released himself from the rules pertaining to the solicitation of money on federal property, which in his mind probably apply exclusively to the lesser 43 men who led prior to his using the Resolute Desk as a footstool.

As for the Dinner Date with Joe and Barry ad, “The White House contends that the video is legal.” A White House spokesperson noted that the “Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued a memo in 1979 explaining that the president can solicit funds in the White House, so long as he does it in the residential portion of the of the mansion, not in a room used for official business.”  The White House must have been pretty darn desperate if it went back to the time when a barrel of oil was $24 to dig up that memo.

Regardless of how the White House parses and spins, according to legal election law experts, “If the video was filmed in the Map Room, as it appears to be, then there is no question it violates the law.”

Nevertheless, similar to the way the administration defended bypassing congressional authorization under the War Powers Act before taking action in Libya, the White House is now justifying campaign ads being filmed in the Map Room. To pacify critics, sleight-of-hand could be used to switch out the placard hanging on the door that says, “For Official Activities Only” for one that reads “Home Sweet Home.”

Experts contend that by soliciting funds in the White House to finance a bid for reelection, the President is definitely bending if not outright breaking the federal law. Cleta Mitchell, member of the American Bar Association’s election law committee, spoke more plainly when addressing the fact that Barack Obama filmed his $5 “Come On-A My House” ad in the White House – she said his doing so is a blatant “criminal offense.”

What Ms. Mitchell doesn’t seem to grasp is that whatever criterion causes Obama’s actions to be defined as “criminal” is not a problem for the present occupant of the White House. The President is well aware that people may gripe, but he will never be called into account for the unlawful act of selling “Reelect Me” raffle tickets from the same room where an official visit was held with the Dalai Lama, who after being welcomed into what is now being considered the President’s ‘private residence,’ was escorted out past a pile of garbage.

It could be that President Obama has convinced himself that but once in a nation’s history comes a leader so superior to all others that placing legal boundaries upon such an individual constitutes an injustice that could result in global ramifications. Moreover, Obama could also feel that the urgent need to finish the vital work he started is so pressing that excusing himself from rules surrounding the solicitation of campaign funds on the premises of the White House is supported by that old adage: “By any means necessary.”

In other words, the “ends” of raising money to keep Obama in office justify the “means” of raising the funds illegally. Thus, if it’s necessary for Barack Obama, a man greater than the rules, to acquire reelection money by making an illegal “really big announcement” in order to “get everything done” over the next 5½ years, then so be it.

%d bloggers like this: